UNIVERSITY  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


THE  CRISIS  IN  INDUSTRY 


(CROWNED  WITH  THE  WORTH  PRIZE) 


THOMAS  WOLFE 


CHAPEL  HILL 
PUBLISHED  BY  THE  UNIVERSITY 
1919 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Di  rs  i  Old  York  Library 


Go*  '  o 9 


UNIVERSITY  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


THE  CRISIS  IN  INDUSTRY 


CCROWNED  WITH  THE  WORTH  PRIZE) 


THOMAS  WOLFE 


CHAPEL  HILL 
PUBLISHED  BY  THE  UNIVERSITY 

1919 


3 

■  xS 


INTRODUCTION 


The  Worth  Prize  is  maintained  by  Mr.  C.  W.  Worth,  '82, 
in  memory  of  his  father,  Mr.  D.  G.  Worth,  Wilmington, 
N.  C.  The  prize  was  established  in  1882  by  Mr.  D.  G.  Worth 
in  appreciation  of  the  excellent  work  done  in  Philosophy  by 
Mr.  C.  W.  Worth.  The  list  of  Worth  Prize  men,  headed  by 
Mr.  C.  W.  Worth,  is  a  unique  group.  Some  of  them  have 
now  national  reputation.  One  has  published  more  books 
than  any  other  alumnus  of  the  University.  One  of  these 
books,  The  Philosophy  of  Education,  has  been  translated  into 
four  languages,  including  that  of  Japan. 

The  prize  is  awarded  to  the  best  thesis  submitted  in  the 
courses  in  Philosophy  and  consists  in  having  this  thesis 
printed.  To  achieve  this  honor  gives  a  man  distinction  in 
University  life. 

When  one  thinks  of  the  subjects  studied  in  these  theses, 
he  marvels  at  the  courage  of  the  men.  They  enjoy  full  free- 
dom in  this  matter  and  reach  their  own  conclusions.  The 
instructor  seeks  to  give  vital  stimulus  and  then  submerge. 

Mr.  Thomas  Wolfe,  the  winner  of  the  prize  for  1919,  makes 
an  innovation,  as  to  subject.    He  tells  us  about  Industry. 

The  students  who  look  below  the  surface  will  agree  that 
Industry  is  now  the  source  of  human  anxiety.  Many  believe 
we  are  face  to  face  with  one  of  those  profound  storms  that 
come  in  man's  life  every  few  centuries. 

So  far  man  has  been  unable  to  pass  through  such  an  up- 
heaval without  the  liberal  use  of  big  violence.  The  result 
has  been  vast  loss  and  deep  suffering.  Not  only  the  body, 
but  the  mind  and  soul  have  suffered.  It  may  be  that  violence 
is  an  instrument  of  progress. 

If  Philosophy  shall  be  able  to  throw  any  light  upon  the 
problem  of  Industry,  or  aid  in  advancing  gentler  methods  of 
progress,  the  effort  justifies  itself. 

H.  H.  WILLIAMS. 

Chapel  Hill,  N.  C,  1919. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/crisisinindustryOOwolf 


THE  CRISIS  IN  INDUSTRY 


"Wars,"  the  philosopher  says,  "are  the  birth  pangs  of 
truths."  "Great  wars,"  he  continues,  "are  the  birth  pangs 
of  master  truths."  We  have  just  seen  a  great  war  come  to 
its  close. 

If  any  truth  has  come  from  that  war,  it  is  the  truth  of 
modern  labor  becoming  conscious  of  itself  as  a  vital,  breath- 
ing, compelling  force.  The  industrial  problem  looms  before 
us  in  an  almost  menacing  aspect.  We  know  today  that  the 
issue  demands  immediate  settlement.  Victorious  in  our  war 
with  the  common  foe  we  are  today  appalled  by  the  mutter- 
ings  of  something  far  more  dreadful, — industrial  civil  strife. 
Let  us  consider,  for  a  minute,  the  viewpoint  of  the  detached 
observer.  One  of  Japan's  most  distinguished  statesmen, 
Count  Okuma,  looking  across  the  world  at  the  great  war  just 
closed,  declared  it  to  be  nothing  less  than  the  death  of  modern 
civilization.  Just  as  the  civilizations  of  Babylon,  Egypt, 
Greece,  Carthage,  and  the  Roman  Empire  have  crumbled  in 
succession,  so,  in  his  opinion,  our  modern  civilization  is  even 
now  going  the  same  way.  Whether  this  be  true  or  not,  it  is 
certain  that  from  the  world  struggle  we  may  see  the  destruc- 
tion of  an  industrial  civilization  which  the  workers  will  not 
want  to  build  back.  And  the  danger  now  is  that  at  this 
period  of  crisis,  it  may  be  easier  to  pass  into  ruin  than  to 
move  onward.    There  is  the  problem. 

In  the  midst  of  all  these  volcanic  outbreaks  of  industrial 
trouble  in  the  different  parts  of  our  country,  thinking  people 
are  asking  each  other,  "What  does  labor  want?"  It  is  a 
puzzling  question.  The  wages  for  which  labor  works  are 
higher  than  ever  before,  the  living  and  working  conditions  of 
the  workers  are  almost  ideal  compared  with  those  of  even  a 
generation  ago, — the  whole  industrial  scheme  seems  regulated 
on  a  more  humane  scale. 


6 


The  Cbisib  in  Inddstet 


But  it  becomes  evident,  at  this  time,  that  these  petty, 
paltry  bickerings,  for  a  six-hour  day,  higher  wages,  meal 
times,  and  all  the  rest,  do  not  in  even  the  slightest  degree 
represent  the  fundamental  nature  of  these  men's  demands, — 
demands  that  became  clearly  denned  during  the  war,  and 
that  now  cry  for  answer. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  do  not  assume  for  a  minute  that  the 
doctrines  of  Socialism  or  Bolshevism  demanding  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  capitalist  system  and  advocating  the  conscious 
class  warfare  represents  the  attitude  of  labor  in  general,  or 
that  such  methods  as  these  are  the  motivating  purposes  of 
any  large  group  of  leaders  and  workers  with  the  exception, 
perhaps,  of  one  or  two  restricted  areas. 

No — the  labor  movement  has  nothing  in  common  with  this 
kind  of  doctrine.  I  believe  it  realizes  the  fundamental  right 
of  capital  to  a  share  in  the  business  of  production ;  what  it 
protests  against  is  the  fact  that  under  the  present  system, 
labor  itself  does  not  have  a  share,  and  it  asserts  that  its  right 
to  an  equal  share  is  just  as  true,  and  just  as  fundamental  as 
the  right  of  capital. 

The  fact  that  the  great  body  of  workers  have  not  defined 
sharply  the  nature  of  their  demands  does  not,  for  a  minute, 
indicate  that  they  do  not  know  what  they  want.  The  awak- 
ening of  labor  may  not  as  yet  be  complete;  its  consciousness 
of  itself  may  not  be  realized  to  the  utmost.  I  do  not  think 
it  is  yet,  but  its  newly  gained  knowledge  is  not  obscure.  The 
whole  experience  of  the  war  has  been  to  clarify  its  vision. 

Labor  today  is  in  active  revolt  against  the  whole  system 
whereby  its  labor,  the  product  of  its  blood,  bone,  sinew,  and 
brain  is  treated  as  a  commodity — something  to  be  bought  at 
will,  the  price  of  which  may  be  forced  up  or  down,  just  as 
the  price  of  flour  or  sugar.  If  labor  is  a  commodity,  then 
its  demands  that  it  have  a  directive  power  in  the  expenditure 
of  its  own  labor,  its  assumption  that  it  is  engaged  in  a  busi- 
ness with  capital  and  that  business  is  production,  its  state- 
ment that  its  contribution  to  that  business  is  just  as  essential 
as  the  contribution  of  capital,  and  that,  therefore,  it  should 


The  Ckisis  in  Industby 


7 


be  entitled  to  the  control  of  this  business  with  capital  on  a 
basis  of  equal  co-partnership, — if,  I  say,  the  assumption  that 
labor  is  a  commodity  is  correct,  then  labor  is  unjustified  in 
these  beliefs  and  demands.  For  a  commodity,  to  my  mind, 
is  devoid  of  life,  or,  if  it  possesses  life,  that  life  is  insensate 
and  devoid  of  consciousness. 

But  I  do  not  believe  that  labor  is  a  commodity.  Labor 
has  life — in  fact,  labor  is  life.  Remove  life  and  there  is  no 
labor.  No  one  would  say  that  a  machine  labors ; — it  runs. 
The  desire  to  work,  to  labor,  is  fundamental  in  a  man,  it  is 
not  a  mechanical  process;  it  comes  from  his  inmost  being,  I 
sincerely  believe. 

There  is  a  sacredness  about  labor,  it  is  of  a  religious  na- 
ture even — and  religion  is  fundamental  in  the  lives  of  men. 

If,  then,  labor  is  life,  and  not  insensate;  if  labor  is  pos- 
sessed of  an  intelligent  consciousness  of  itself  and  the  work- 
ings of  its  life,  it  becomes  manifest  that  labor  itself,  in  the 
intelligent  consciousness  of  itself,  becomes  its  own  unit  of 
value,  the  directive  force  of  its  own  working,  the  source  of 
its  own  purposes  and  that,  in  short,  it  dominates  its  own  ex- 
istence, and  cannot,  by  right,  be  forced  to  the  obedience  of 
any  outward  imposition. 

What  labor  wants,  as  I  see  it,  is  its  right  to  self-direc- 
tion. Capital  does  not  recognize  this  right.  Whereas  the 
swift,  sure  progress  of  labor  consciousness  is  today  well 
marked  and  may  be,  at  all  times,  clearly  defined,  I  am  unable 
to  discover  a  corresponding  process  on  the  part  of  capital. 
These  capitalist  folk,  your  owning  and  directing,  and  manag- 
ing people,  remain  blind  to  the  fundamentals  of  the  problem. 
In  a  few  isolated  places,  one  perhaps  catches  a  gleam,  but, 
for  the  rest,  they  cannot  understand  the  attitude  of  labor. 
The  trouble  is :  Capital  is  now  as  static  as  it  was  fifty  years 
ago.   As  some  one  has  said,  the  chief  difference  is  golf. 

These  men,  for  the  most  part,  seem  to  have  learned  neither 
humanity  or  caution  from  the  tedious  times  our  nation  has 
gone  through.  Instead  of  awakening  to  the  new  sense  of 
values,  they  rather  brand,  as  does  a  large  part  of  society,  the 


s 


The  Crisis  in  Industry 


workers  as  "L  W.  W.'s,"  "Slackers,"  "Bolshevists,"— 
workers  who,  becoming  conscious  of  their  social  and  human 
value,  realizing  their  problem  is  a  human  one,  are  striving 
to  carry  that  new  sense  into  a  reformed  industrial  system. 

The  capitalist  class  do  not  seem  to  realize  that  the  "old 
order  changeth,"  that  it  is  changed,  God  willing,  for  all  time. 
The  significance  of  the  war  seems  lost  on  them.  But — there 
can  be  no  patchwork  reconstruction  now.  I  do  not  believe 
that  now  that  the  war  is  over,  now  that  we  have  emerged 
from  the  holocaust,  that  what  remains  to  be  reconstructed  is 
this  or  that  bureau  of  government,  this  or  that  machine  of 
administration.  No — the  meaning  of  the  war  is  more  funda- 
mental, more  vital  than  any  of  these.  The  whole  society  must 
be  reconstructed.  Labor  sees  this,  in  general  capital  does 
not. 

Thus,  as  we  have  seen,  the  labor  group  is  in  active 
revolt  against  the  old  system.  They  know  it  must  change. 
And  they  are  trying  to  change  it  now,  using  as  their  method 
the  so-called  "direct  action,"  the  strike. 

But — here  another  problem  arises.  It  is  plain  labor  sees 
the  problem,  manifestly  they  are  clear  in  their  knowledge  of 
what  they  want, — but,  do  they  see  the  solution?  Is  force  a 
remedy  of  the  vast  industrial  problem? 

The  unrestricted  use  of  force  by  both  classes,  capitalist 
and  labor,  is,  I  think,  a  dangerous  sequence,  the  terrible  re- 
flex action  of  the  giant  strife  that  has  been  waged  throughout 
the  world.  It  manifests  itself  now  in  class  warfare  here.  In- 
flamed by  privations  and  suffering,  it  shows  itself  as  civil 
war  in  Russia  and  Germany. 

The  war  parallel,  I  think,  is  a  good  one.  The  neutral  ob- 
server, which,  in  the  industrial  strife,  is  supposedly  the  citi- 
zenship without  the  two  classes,  may  protest  against  the 
quality  of  a  justice,  which,  acting  from  itself,  is  the  judge 
of  its  own  cause,  and  the  vindication  of  itself  through  its  tri- 
umphant force.  It  is  the  age-old  idea  of  "Might  Is  Right." 
But  might  is  not  right,  and  can  never  vindicate  its  cause. 
Force  everywhere  sweeps  aside  its  moral  obligations  and 


The  Crisis  in  Industry 


9 


runs  its  own  course  unmindful  of  the  rights  of  others.  In- 
sistent on  its  own  rights,  it  forgets  that  words  "right"  and 
"duty"  are,  or  should  be,  inseparably  linked.  What  of  the 
duty  to  the  neutral,  if  I  may  use  the  war  parallel  again? 
If  two  boys  fight  in  the  street  a  crowd  gathers  to  watch 
them, — they  are  separated, — the  crowd  goes  it  way.  In  a 
class  warfare  waged  between  labor  and  capital,  the  crowd, 
which  is  the  third  group,  the  consumers  of  production,  can- 
not look  on  with  the  detached  viewpoint.  No !  The  prob- 
lem is  so  vast,  it  is  so  close  to  the  heart  of  national  life,  that 
the  whole  body  of  the  nation  is  affected  deeply,  powerfully. 
The  question  yet  remains  to  be  answered :  Can  any  class,  in- 
sistent on  its  own  rights,  obtain  them  with  rampant  forco, 
at  the  expense  of  universal  suffering? 

This  idea  of  force  used  in  the  interests  of  the  class  is  the 
natural  builder  of  its  own  rights,  the  satisfaction  of  its  in- 
wrought cravings  is  expressed  unconsciously,  but  masterfully, 
in  the  exlcamation  of  the  Frenchman,  Pichon :  ' '  Has  the  vic- 
tor no  rights  over  the  vanquished?" 

I  will  answer  the  Frenchman  that  the  victors  have  no 
rights  over  the  vanquished  because  of  their  victory.  I  do 
not  believe  the  use  of  force  ever  settled  any  problem.  Class 
warfare  is  being  waged  throughout  the  country  now.  The 
strike — the  direct  action,  the  method  of  force  is  the  com- 
mon agency.  Whenever  the  labor  group  obtains  its  demands 
or  part  of  them,  a  shout  of  triumph  goes  up  from  labor's 
ranks.  Similarly,  when  capital  is  successful  in  hold-out 
methods,  there  is  great  rejoicing  among  capitalists.  The 
victory  of  the  moment  has  been  won ;  these  men  do  not  pause 
to  consider  the  fact  that  they  are  as  far  away  from  a  solution, 
nay,  further,  than  ever.  When  we  consider  this  question  rea- 
sonably, when  we  consider  the  fundamental  demand  of  labor 
that  it  engage  in  business  with  capital  on  a  basis  of  mutual 
responsibility,  and  mutual  democratic  co-partnership,  a  de- 
mand admitted  in  isolated  cases  by  capital, — we  see  plainly 
that  instead  of  being  drawn  closer  together  until  they  meet 
at  a  solution,  the  method  of  force  has  only  served  to  antago- 


10 


The  Crisis  in  Industry 


nize  the  two  classes,  until  now  they  face  each  other  in  sep- 
arate armed  camps,  ready,  at  the  provocation  of  prejudice, 
to  wage  blind,  futile  warfare. 

The  solution  to  the  problem  is,  I  think,  fairly  obvious. 
Intelligent  people  today  admit,  nor  can  any  decent-minded 
person  deny,  in  this  day,  that  the  demand  of  labor  for  demo- 
cratic co-operation  is  unreasonable.  Indeed,  in  a  political 
democracy,  the  only  natural  parallel  here  would  be  industrial 
democracy.  We  feel  today  that  capitalist  absolutism  must 
go,  that  any  form  of  capitalist  domination  is  hateful.  Like- 
wise, we  know  that  a  reversal  of  the  system  whereby  labor 
would  hold  the  dominant  position  would  be  just  as  undesir- 
able. 

There  is,  to  my  mind,  but  one  adequate  solution.  That 
solution,  broadly  put,  is  industrial  democracy, — a  system  of 
democratic  co-operation  in  industry  with  equal  rights  and 
responsibilities  for  labor  and  capital. 

It  is  significant  to  note  that  the  first  two  methods  depend 
on  force  for  their  maintenance — the  last  method  depends  on 
co-operation, — on  the  inherent  willingness  of  men  to  listen 
to  reason.  Is  there  not  a  living  hope  for  us  that  the  prin- 
ciples of  democracy  and  self-determination,  which  are  being 
put  to  the  test  today  in  government,  can  meet  the  test  in  in- 
dustry? It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  a  compelling  parallelism 
here,  that  the  success  or  failure  in  the  one  phase  stands  for 
a  corresponding  success  or  failure  in  the  other. 

It  is  too  much,  to  my  mind,  to  hope  that  the  labor  class 
will  effect  this  desirable  solution  by  themselves.  They  see, 
as  we  know,  the  problem,  they  have  come  into  a  realization 
of  their  right,  but  they  do  not  see  a  proper  solution. 

The  method  of  force  is,  I  believe,  a  natural,  but  a  dis- 
tinctly menacing  sequence  to  the  war  just  ended. 

If,  in  the  fact  of  labor's  display  of  force,  government 
misunderstands  it,  and  retaliates  with  a  rival  and  superior 
display  of  force,  then  let  us  say  farewell  to  our  hopes  of  de- 
mocracy. Capital  could,  I  suppose,  conscript  an  army  large 
enough  to  quell  for  the  time  rebellious  labor.   But,  even  if  the 


The  Crisis  in  Industry 


11 


strife  which  sets  brother  against  brother  should  succeed, 
labor  would  still  be  alive  in  the  flaming  spirit  of  revolt. 

We  cannot  consider  labor  a  category;  it  is  human — a 
mass  of  men  and  women  workers.  We  may  stigmatize  the 
labor  movement  all  we  choose, — we  may  call  it  selfish,  men- 
acing, rebellious,  thoughtless — any  of  these  names,  but  the 
fact  remains  that  labor  has  possession  of  a  great  truth. 

Labor  knows  that  the  system — the  blind  system  that  treats 
man  as  an  adjunct  to  the  machine,  has  nearly  crushed  out 
the  little  lives  of  the  workers.  And  it  is  making  its  effort  to 
get  this  blind  power  in  hand. 

As  I  have  said,  I  do  not  think  labor  has  attained  a  full 
consciousness  of  itself;  that  will  evolve.  I  think  some  phases 
of  the  movement  are  faulty. 

Labor  makes  its  mistake,  I  think,  in  making  the  same  de- 
mands for  the  mass  of  the  workers. 

In  this  respect,  it  seems  to  be  a  mass  movement.  But  it 
is  evident  that  the  capabilities  of  individual  workmen  must 
always  be  considered.  The  capacity  of  one  individual  for 
work  may  be  either  greater  or  less  than  those  of  another. 
Such  a  thing  as  real  equality  in  this  respect  is,  to  my  mind, 
hardly  possible. 

It  is  granted,  perhaps,  that  individuals  have  equal  oppor- 
tunities for  work  under  a  reformed  industrial  system.  It 
does  not  hold,  however,  that  individuals  have  equal  capac- 
ities for  work,  and  labor  today  in  its  onward  movement  has 
manifestly  not  taken  this  into  consideration. 

This,  however,  is  a  natural  mistake  and  one  which  may  be 
remedied. 

And  now,  how  does  the  problem  stand? 

We  see  labor  has  come  into  a  realization  of  its  self  as  a 
body  vital  with  the  power  of  life,  intelligent  as  to  its  work- 
ings, and  sure  of  its  function  in  industry.  We  realize  that 
no  reasonable  solution  to  our  problem  will  ever  be  obtained 
by  the  use  of  force — by  the  strike  which  breaks  out  sporad- 
ically at  this  time  in  various  parts  of  the  country.  The  so- 
lution to  labor  appears  to  be  the  strike,  the  use  of  force 
That  is  no  true  solution. 


12 


The  Crisis  in  Industry 


Now,  since  this  problem  is  one  that  affects  the  vitals  of 
national  life  and  unity,  it  is  obviously  the  business  of  govern- 
ment to  aid  the  workers  to  attain  the  true  solution. 

If  the  government  sees  only  on  the  surface,  and  attempts 
to  crush  labor  by  a  superior  display  of  force,  the  result  will 
be  nothing  less  than  terrible  civil  strife. 

As  it  seems  to  me,  the  issue  stands  squarely  before  the 
government.  Labor  no  longer  bus  faith  in  government  as  a 
legislative  remedy  for  their  problem.  Labor  puts  no  depend- 
ence in  the  ballot  today — this  means  is  inadequate, — we  have 
in  its  place  the  strike,  the  direct  action. 

Where  lies  the  fault?  Largely,  I  think,  with  government. 
A  few  months  ago  one  of  the  most  memorable  sessions  of  Con- 
gress in  the  nation's  history  came  to  a  close.  It  was  mem- 
orable not  for  what  it  had  done  but  for  what  it  had  left  un- 
done. The  industrial  condition  during  the  months  immedi- 
ately following  the  signing  of  the  armistice  grew  and  is  grow- 
ing, as  I  write  this,  continually  more  menacing.  Congress, 
with  great  care,  kept  away  from  the  industrial  problem.  The 
session,  for  the  most  part,  was  concerned  by  petty,  party  bick- 
erings, back-bitings  and  partisan  politics  of  a  paltry  nature. 
I  say  th's  with  no  attempt  to  be  sensational,  with  no  spirit  of 
bitterness, — it  seems  an  obvious  statement  of  fact. 

Faced  with  a  condition  like  this,  what  can  labor  do?  The 
final  solution  is  left  for  government.  In  the  first  place,  what 
is  our  conception  of  democracy?  Some  say  it  is  the  rule  of 
the  majority?  If  this  is  so,  what  chance  have  the  minority 
for  the  attainment  of  their  honest  desires? 

Is  this  a  true  conception  of  democracy?  It  is,  perhaps, 
the  accepted  conception,  but  is  this  not  a  sordid,  insensate 
thing?   "We  think  of  democracy  as  alive,  as  vital. 

Can  the  majority  establish  its  cause  by  mere  right  of 
numbers  ?  I  do  not  think  so.  The  right  of  numbers  is  analog- 
ous to  the  right  of  force.  As  well  might  we  say  the  gladiator 
should  die  because  the  majority  of  the  Roman  populace 
turned  down  its  thumbs. 

Yet,  here  is  a  living  obstacle.    "With  the  powerful  press 


The  Crisis  in  Industry 


13 


of  the  country  denouncing  labor  as  insurrectionary  and  men- 
acing, with  public  opinion  being  moulded  adversely  day  by 
day,  with  the  denunciation  of  the  whole  capitalist  system, 
what  can  a  minority  group  do?  Labor  is  employing  the  or- 
ganized community  threat — the  strike,  to  get  its  demands. 

What  must  the  government  do?  If  the  majority  turn 
down  the  thumbs  to  a  minority  group, — that  group  is  sub- 
jected to  a  democratic  tyranny, — contradictory  as  the  state- 
ment may  sound. 

Likewise,  the  minority  may  retaliate  by  the  strike  method 
and  the  business  of  the  whole  community  will  be  paralyzed. 
It  is  a  reversible  action. 

This  condition  must  be  changed.  The  real  problem,  most 
evidently,  is  not  arriving  at  the  solution,  which,  expressed 
broadly,  is  industrial  democracy.  The  solution  is  evident. 
The  problem  now  is  making  the  solution  possible  for  the 
labor  group.    This  must  be  done  by  the  government. 

The  only  possible  way  this  can  be  done,  as  I  see  it,  is  to 
allow  labor  itself  to  determine  its  inner  workings.  It 
amounts  to  an  industrial  application  of  "self-determination." 

The  prejudice  of  the  many  can  no  longer,  in  justice,  be 
allowed  to  curtail  the  conscious  development  of  the  few ;  the 
workers  owe  a  duty  of  production  to  the  nation, — this,  they 
must  fulfill, — as  for  the  industrial  status  they  desire,  this 
must  be  established  and  maintained  by  co-operative  means 
between  and  by  the  two  groups  of  industry. 

It  is  the  right  of  these  men  to  their  own  conscious  devel- 
opment,— it  is  something  they  must  decide  within  themselves 
without  any  outward  imposition. 

The  principle  of  self-determination,  intended  primarily  for 
the  small  nation,  which  our  democracy  now  advocates,  must 
finally,  I  think,  be  used  industrially,  as  well  as  politically. 
And — government  must  recognize  and  promote  this. 

With  a  feeling  almost  of  regret  I  come  to  my  conclusion. 

The  problem  that  once  to  me  was  economic  is  now  plainly 


14 


The  Crisis  in  Industry 


and  undeniably  human.  It  deals  with  the  lives  of  men  and 
women,  their  right  to  the  conscious  development  of  their 
selves. 

What  I  have  written  gives  me  no  satisfaction.  For  the 
mutterings  of  a  coming  strike  become  daily  more  threatening. 
Force,  the  blind  weapon,  is  being  used  extensively, — may  I 
not  say  exclusively? 

What  will  the  future  bring?  I  do  not  know.  Is  the  state- 
ment of  the  Japanese  to  come  true?  Are  we  facing  the  de- 
struction of  our  modern  civilization  ?    Again,  I  do  not  know. 

Will  the  blood  of  our  young  men  be  expended — this  time 
in  civil  strife,  —  family  against  family,  brother  against 
brother?   God  forbid! 


i  ^ 

i AVERY 


PROLEGOMENA 

to 

THOMAS  WOLFE'S 
A  CRISIS  IN  INDUSTRY 
by 

Richard  Walser 


Ballingers' 
Used  and  Rare  Bool^s 
Hillsborough,  N.C. 

1978 

mm 


PROLEGOMENA 

by  Richard  Walser 


Any  zealous  Thomas  Wolfe  collector  would  give  his 
right  eye  -  yes,  and  also  his  left  arm  -  to  possess  a  mint 
copy  of  that  rarest  of  Wolfe  titles.  The  Crisis  in  Industry. 
Of  the  two  hundred  copies  printed,  probably  no  more  than 
a  dozen  or  so  exist.  On  the  cover  of  the  gray  wrappers  was 
the  identical  wording  of  the  title  page,  and  inside  were 
fourteen  pages  of  white  paper  watermarked  '"Olde  Style." 
It  was  an  undergraduate  essay  handed  out  to  family  and 
friends  (no  one  else  would  have  been  interested)  who,  after 
a  thank-you  and  congratulations  and  a  quick  look, 
consigned  it  to  a  dark  corner  and  on  to  the  thoughtless 
dust  pile  and  destruction. 

The  essay  of  nine-plus  pages  was  the  winner  of  the 
Worth  Prize  in  Philosophy,  established  in  the  1880s  at  the 
University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill.  Several  days 
before  Wolfe's  name  was  announced,  an  article  on  com- 
mencement awards  in  the  campus  weekly  Tar  Heel  of  June 
14,  1919.  explained  that  the  "best  thesis  submitted  by  a 
student  in  Philosophy"  would  receive  the  prize  and  it 
would  be  printed  by  the  donor.  That  same  issue  of  the 
Tar  Heel  reported  that  Thomas  Wolfe  had  been  elected  its 
editor-in-chief  for  the  following  year  and  that  during  the 
previous  week  he  had  read,  "at  a  big  mass  meeting"  of 
students  in  Gerrard  Hall,  a  paper  on  "The  Creative  Move- 
ment in  Writing,"  its  text  forthwith  appearing  therein.  By 
no  means  were  these  the  only  recognitions  he  received  at 
the  end  of  his  junior  year.  Tall  eighteen-year-old  Tom 
Wolfe  was  a  busy  man  on  campus,  an  important  man,  and 
a  very  popular  man  with  both  faculty  and  students.  The 
Worth  Prize  was  just  another  honor  added  to  an  impressive 
list. 

During  the  winter  and  spring  quarters,  Wolfe  had  taken 
philosophy  under  Professor  Horace  Williams,  a  crusty  old 
fellow  whose  classes  relied  mainly  on  the  question-and- 
answer  method.  A  textbook  was  assigned  and  a  "thesis" 
required,  but  otherwise  the  sessions  were  rather  free-for- 
all  discussions  at  which  Wolfe  said  himself  he  was  "no 


Prolegomena  2 


slouch  "  On  the  second  course  of  Philosophy  15-16 
"a  study  of  the  forces  that  shape  life."  according  to  the 
university  Calalnguc  Wolle  drew  an  A  Though  Williams 
boasted  that  he  rarely  gave  an  A.  by  the  spring  of  1919 
he  had  decided  that  the  Asheville  young  man  was  "the  most 
brilliant  student  I  ever  had"  and.  as  it  was  rumored  on 
campus,  nothing  less  than  an  A  and  a  Worth  Prize  were 
appropriate  The  latter  was  so  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
Wolfe's  entry  was  contrary  to  what  might  have  been 
expected. 

Basic  to  Williams'  class  discussions  were  Hegelian 
abstractions  like  the  Hegriff  (concept ),  and  students  were 
encouraged  to  use  the  German  word.  They  were  taught  to 
push  their  heads  into  the  clouds  Former  winners  of  the 
Worth  Prize  bore  such  titles  as  "The  Principles  of 
Subjectivity"  and  "Can  the  Universe  Be  txplauied?" 
While  Wolfe  was  of  course  capable  of  writing  undergrad- 
uate trifles  like  "The  Place  of  the  Church  in  Religion."  he 
now  took  flight  on  a  matter  quite  different. 

In  the  months  following  World  War  I,  reflective  people 
everywhere  were  considering  how  best  to  reorganize 
societies  and  nations.  Serious  students  batted  ideas  back 
and  forth  in  dormitory  bull  sessions  At  meetings  of  the 
Dialectic  Literary  Society,  faithfully  attended  by  Wolfe, 
debaters  had  long  argued  such  questions  as  "That  all  labor 
disputes  which  have  important  concern  to  the  public 
should  be  compulsorily  settled  in  legally  established  courts 
of  arbitration"  and  "That  labor  unions  are  beneficial  to 
the  general  welfare  of  the  people."  At  both  the  North 
State  School  in  Asheville  and  the  Di  Society  in  Chapel  Hill. 
Wolfe  had  been  trained  in  the  style  of  speaker  and  debater. 
The  Crisis  in  Industry  evinces  his  background  of  exposure 
to  analyses  of  labor's  problems  as  well  as  his  experience  in 
declamation. 

Wolfe's  "thesis"  contended  that  a  crisis  in  industry  had 
arisen  because  of  a  seemingly  unresolvable  conflict  between 
capital  and  labor.  To  avoid  "terrible  civil  strife."  capital 
needed  to  recognize  labor's  "fundamental  right"  as  a 


Prolegomena  3 


contributor  to  the  business  of  production.  Labor  was  no 
insensate  commodity,  but  possessed  "an  intelligent  con- 
sciousness" demanding  "its  right  to  self-direction."  Its  use 
of  the  strike  to  force  capital  to  recognize  its  rights  would 
eventually  lead  to  "class  warfare,"  and  even  the  destruc- 
tion of  modern  civilization.  Wolfe's  solution  to  the  prob- 
lem turned  "on  the  inherent  willingness  of  men  to  listen 
to  reason,"  the  result  of  which  would  be  an  "industrial 
democracy,  -  a  system  of  democratic  co-operation  in 
industry  with  equal  rights  and  responsibilties  for  labor  and 
capital."  The  only  agency  capable  of  quelling  the  obstinacy 
of  both  sides  was  government,  which  must  "allow  labor 
itself  to  determine  its  inner  workings."  Wolfe  did  not 
suggest  how  government  would  bring  this  about. 

The  pro-labor  bias  throughout  the  essay  reveals,  not 
surprisingly,  the  social  awareness  of  the  eighteen-year-old. 
He  thought  of  himself  as  a  representative  of  working 
people.  His  mother  kept  a  boarding  house,  and  his  father 
was  a  stonecutter.  Perhaps  he  was  shrewd  enought  to  rely 
on  his  professor's  sympathy  for  the  simple  man,  the  man 
who  depends  for  his  livelihood  upon  what  he  accomplishes 
with  his  hands.  Certainly  he  knew  of  Horace  Williams's 
distaste  for  scientists,  economists,  and  bull-headed  capital- 
ists. And  certainly  he  knew  how  the  philosopher  admired 
a  student's  frank  expression. 

Richard  S.  Kennedy  (The  Window  of  Memory,  p.  54) 
thought  the  essay  a  "glimmer  of  the  force  that  was  to 
come."  Indeed,  The  Crisis  in  Industry  was  well  argued. 
Andrew  Turnbull  (Thomas  Wolfe,  p.  40)  noted  that 
Horace  Williams  said  it  was  '"a  great  utterance,'  and  Wolfe 
felt  big  with  prophecy." 

Maybe  so,  maybe  so.  But  Wolfe  would  have  won  any- 
way. There  is  no  evidence  that  competing  students  thought 
the  honor  was  not  fully  deserved. 


OVC  1  *3      do*  ' 


300  numbered  copies  of  this  facsimile  edition  were 
printed  at  The  Loom  Press,  Chapel  Hill,  in  1978.  Ten 
additional  copies  were  printed  out  of  sequence  for 
promotional  use. 


This  copy  is 
No. 

56 


